Craig,
I guess I am a bit disappointed with the thread. We used to have relatively level-headed discussions on this message board until the recent stock price volatility. Now Jerome has sold his position as well and everyone is pointing fingers at stock manipulation and insider trades. I weighed in on these issues already, including the timing of the recent press releases.
I became interested in this stock after doing my own independent research, reading the annual report, going over the balance sheet, incorporating some of the views offered by SI members on this thread AND buying and using the company's products. I also was strongly influenced by Jerome and Rex's detailed analysis of the stock last fall. It is easy to become intoxicated with this company.
At the present time, for all the reasons I have mentioned, the near term will be strongly influenced by retail sales and the ability of the company to defend its intellectual properties. I have personally seen my stake in the company fall by 33 1/3% over the time I have accumulated shares. I am still not willing to hold an issue for 3 months and then dump it without a fundamental change in the company's position in the market place. Current investors are betting that Lexar Media will lose their case. My comfort with the stock is directly proportional the strength of my belief that they will be successful. However, there are no guarantees. This litigation antedated my intial investments in the company.
We can talk about licensing agreements and royalty payments until we are blue in the face. At this point the discussion has become somewhat repetitious. I have copied a relatively recent post.
Perhaps each of us could strive to find out about the company's position regarding the "package assemblers" which I have mentioned in prior posts. Still nobody has posted any convincing information about stock price manipulation and insider selling. Some of the posts both here and on the Yahoo! thread are libelous..."defamation by written or printed matter"... in front of an audience of untold numbers.
To: Craig Freeman (3134 )
From: Ausdauer
Friday, May 29 1998 6:39AM ET
Reply # of 3402
Craig,
My understanding is that the CFA (CompactFlash Association) allows members who
pay dues and follow the CFA guidelines for interconnectivity/compatibility to display the
CF logo. In that way the standard can gain wider acceptance with a larger number of
design-ins, deeper market penetration and greater end-user recognition and acceptance.
The CFA does not require chip manufacturers to follow Sandisk's recipe for
CompactFlash and it would be possible to design around some of the patents and avoid
paying royalties. The 10Q suggests that this is plausible. I do not think the CFA was
created to guarantee royalty payments to Sandisk.
The point is, I really do not understand the arrangements and nobody has been willing to
explain it to me. Royalty and licensing arrangements are confidential and therefore you
get stone walled if come anywhere near that subject to management. I think it wouldn't
be a breach of confidentiality to at least mention plans to seek royalty payments from
independent producers that may be bootlegging SNDK technology/intellectual patents.
|
